UN Charter stipulates Iran’s right to self-defense
7 Min Read
Article 51 of the UN Charter warrants Iran’s right to respond to “Israel’s” aggression on its consulate in Damascus.
-
According to the UN Charter, Iran has the right to retaliate against the Israeli bombing of its consulate, which was a blatant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated by Mahdi Rtail)
"Israel" is utterly outrageous.
They flagrantly massacre tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza, crush thousands of them under the rubble, deliberately impose famine, orphan and maim thousands of children, flout countless UN resolutions, brush aside the ICJ's requested provisional measures, consistently vilify the UN, bomb UN schools and shelters, and even ignore the United Nations Security Council Resolution 2728, adopted on 25 March 2024, that demanded an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Then, they audaciously had the nerve to demand an urgent Security Council meeting in response to Iran's lawful retaliation for bombing their consulate in Damascus, which was a blatant violation of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations reads, “The premises of the [state's] mission shall be inviolable.”
Now let’s look back a little, shall we?
'Israel’s' attack on Iran’s consulate in Damascus
On April 1, in the heart of Syria’s capital, Damascus, Iran’s consulate became the target of an illegal Israeli bombing, where seven Iranian military advisors and two senior commanders were killed.
Footage shows the destruction as a result of the Israeli airstrike that targeted the #Iranian consulate in #Damascus, Syria. pic.twitter.com/YVPCPJ1cu8
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) April 1, 2024
Naturally, retaliation would be expected, which was then affirmed by the Iranian Mission to the UN. "The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its legitimate and inherent right under international law and the United Nations Charter to take a decisive response to such reprehensible acts," the statement read.
As the world watched with bated breath, “Israel” became gripped by fear.
Israeli media revealed that the Israeli occupation forces raised their alert status, noting that "regular soldiers and reservists from certain units who planned to travel received notice of travel cancellation."
The Israeli occupation entity also shut down 28 of its legations worldwide, the media indicated.
Even its biggest ally the US, stood on edge and restricted the movement of its diplomats and their family members in "Israel", particularly outside the "Tel Aviv," occupied al-Quds, and Beer al-Sabe' areas, citing security fears.
Then, the awaited day came.
Iran’s retaliatory strike on 'Israel'
It was on a late Saturday night, April 13, when Iran delivered a resounding response, showering the Israeli occupation directly for the first time ever with dozens of missiles and drones that hit specific military bases, and dealing an unprecedented public humiliation to “Israel”, the US, and their deterrence.
As the #US says it will not support an Israeli response to the unprecedented retaliatory #Iranian attack on "Israel", what could happen next?#Iran pic.twitter.com/cQ8sJHAIpv
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) April 14, 2024
In the aftermath, Western countries rushed to condemn the Iranian retaliatory strike on “Israel,” which mind you are the same ones who haven’t batted an eyelash for over 190 days over “Israel’s” genocidal war on Gaza; choosing instead to turn a blind eye and cover up “Israel’s” war crimes in Gaza under the pretext of “Israel’s right to self-defense.”
Read more: In numbers: 190 days of Israeli genocide in Gaza
On Sunday, April 12, an emergency meeting at the Security Council was convened at “Israel’s” request. However, UN experts said “Israel” does not appear to have been exercising self-defense on April 1 since it presented no evidence that Iran was directly committing an “armed attack” nor did it send non-state armed groups to attack it.
The experts also emphasized that “Israel” did not provide “any legal justification for the strike or reported it to the Security Council, as required by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”
The UN experts stated that “Israel’s attack consequently violated the prohibition on the use of armed force against another state under Article 2(4) of the Charter,” adding, “Illegal force was used not only against Iran’s armed forces but also against Syrian territory. Israel’s attack was partly launched from the Golan Heights, which is illegally annexed Syrian territory.”
They further warned that Israeli military personnel and officials responsible for the brutal attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus "may also have committed crimes under an international counter-terrorism treaty of 1971, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons."
"It is an offence to violently attack the official premises or private accommodation of a diplomat where it is likely to endanger them. Iran, Israel and Syria are all parties to the treaty and all have criminal jurisdiction over such offences," they stressed.
On the other side of the coin, Iran's ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations, Amir Saeid Iravani, reiterated that the Iranian operation came within the framework of self-defense and as permitted by international law, and only targeted military sites to avoid civilian targets, in contrast to what "Israel" did in Syria that violated Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations.
He explained that Iran’s Foreign Minister urged for strong condemnation from the international community for this horrific crime, and “called upon the Security Council to strongly denounce this unjustified criminal and terrorist act, taking decisive and appropriate measures to bring the perpetrators to justice swiftly and prevent the recurrence of such horrible crimes against the diplomatic premises of any member state.”
“Regrettably, the Security Council has failed in its duty to maintain international peace and security,” added Iravani.
He said that the retaliatory attack came after the UNSC’s inaction and in line with "Iran's inherent right to self-defense as outlined in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations and recognized by international law."
Iravani concluded his statement by reaffirming Iran’s “commitment to the maintenance of international peace and security,” adding that Tehran “does not seek escalation or war in the region.”
However, the Islamic Republic of Iran vowed to “defend its people, national security and interests, sovereignty, and territorial integrity against any threat or acts of aggression and to respond to any such threat or aggressions vigorously and in accordance with international law,” he made it clear.
Moving forward: 'Israel' attacks Iran
After the ball had been in “Israel's” court, it failed to deliver a resounding response, earning the label of “weak” from Israeli Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Reports surfaced of an Israeli drone attack over the Iranian city of Isfahan on Friday dawn, prompting ridicule on social media.
However, Iranian air defenses swiftly intercepted and neutralized several small drones using ground-based anti-aircraft weapons operating at low altitude, as confirmed by Iran's Army Commander in Isfahan.
Second Brigadier General Mihan Doost further disclosed that no nuclear facilities or military centers were targeted in any foreign attacks, dismissing the circulating reports as "lies and [part of] a misinformation campaign."
Iranian air defenses intercept the Israeli drone attack over #Isfahan, Iran.#Iran pic.twitter.com/PoTJh6EGhd
— Al Mayadeen English (@MayadeenEnglish) April 19, 2024
Israeli media openly acknowledged the perceived weakness of the reported Israeli attack in Iran, noting that it fell short in comparison to Iran's recent retaliatory strikes, further adding to the list of Israeli military failures.
From a legal standpoint, the aforementioned details confirm the legitimacy of Iran's retaliatory attacks against Israeli targets and expose the hypocrisy of the international community, especially the states that condemned the lawful.
